Abdul Halim Bin Darus [ ]

Abdul Halim Bin Darus [ ]

The High Court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court erred in law and fact by failing to perform a maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence at the close of the prosecution case; the prosecution failed to call material witnesses whose absence justified an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act; material contradictions between oral testimony and forensic reports and failures to mark exhibits broke the chain of custody and undermined the prima facie case, necessitating acquittal at the close of the prosecution case.

Citation
RA-42S(A)-1-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Accused (perayu / Orang Kena Tuduh): Abdul Halim bin Darus; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 January 2022
Case Number
RA-42S(A)-1-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (bribery Under MACC Act) / Appeal to High Court Against Conviction and Sentence From Sessions Court (post Conviction Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence of Sessions Court set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case
Legal Topics
Bribery, Prima Facie Case, Adverse Inference for Non Production of Witnesses, Chain of Custody for Exhibits, Forensic Digital Evidence, Section 180 Criminal Procedure Code
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Bribery Prima Facie Case Adverse Inference for Non Production of Witnesses Chain of Custody for Exhibits +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Halim bin Darus

Appellant / Accused (perayu / Orang Kena Tuduh)

Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (bribery Under MACC Act) / Appeal to High Court Against Conviction and Sentence From Sessions Court (post Conviction Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution had made out a prima facie case at the close of its case under s180 CPC
  2. 2 Whether material contradictions and failures in prosecution evidence (including failure to call material witnesses) created reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether failure to mark exhibits and breaks in chain of custody vitiated reliance on exhibits

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court erred in law and fact by failing to perform a maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence at the close of the prosecution case; the prosecution failed to call material witnesses whose absence justified an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act; material contradictions between oral testimony and forensic reports and failures to mark exhibits broke the chain of custody and undermined the prima facie case, necessitating acquittal at the close of the prosecution case.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence of Sessions Court set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case

Orders

  • Allow the appeal
  • Set aside the decision and convictions of the Sessions Court dated 30 April 2019